Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki Phoenix (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a majority (5v3) in favour of Delete here, but more importantly the majority of the Keep comments do not advance any policy-compliant reasons for that opinion (for example, the existence of verified social media platforms does not address any part of PORNBIO or GNG). Black Kite (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Phoenix

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage. The article has been previously deleted, per the 2013 AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 06:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete someone clearly doesnt know how to assess a reliable source. Being verified on spotify does not meet the gng, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep someone clearly doesn't know what notabilty requirements are under WP:PORNBIO in addition, documentation supplied showing Verification across all Social Media platforms and Music Platforms go specifically to items (2) and (3) listed under WP:PORNBIO along with the vast amount of supporting documentation that was intentionally deleted from this page before the same editor nominated it for deletion, after it was approved as having already passed notability requirements by editors. (See BELOW) Art javier (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha ha. Go check the archives. I helped write pornbio old boy and have been involved in numerous discussions of its meaning, i think its safe to say that my grip on deletion issues is more secure than your grip on civility. Have a nice day now... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an old boy, and your comment about "Someone not knowing...." was responded to with facts, simply stated, the article was reviewed already by Devopam (talk) and was found to have met Notability. Your comments won't change that, but thank you and I am having a nice day. If you wrote the WP:PORNBIO guidelines then you already also know this to be true. Comments about my age or anything else won't change the facts at issue. Please keep your comments constructive, and feel free to add references to help with the article in order to improve it, rather than making statements that are already documented as not true. :) Art javier (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happier if i called you dear boy? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be far happier if you simply assisted in helping make the article better, since the strength for notability already exists, and since you have said that you have helped with the WP:PORNBIO you would be in a great position to assist with this, and I for one would greatly appreciate the help, since I have watched the article have vast portions deleted despite other editors putting it up, helping with it, reviewing that it met notability etc. I think that would be a wonderful use of your time, and you are in a unique position to help. Would you please help? Thanks in advance if you will please do so as there has been a substantial time investment by a number of editors on this article. Art javier (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Her coverage varies from AVN [1] & XBIZ [2] to music publications[3][4][5] to the National Review [6]. That satisfies my threshold for the notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article has changed shape drastically from when I reviewed it last, yet I find this satisfies the notability criteria. Devopam (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage appears to be of the routine variety. Cant find as the winner of any awards, only nominated. Being verified by various social media is not evidence of notability (its actually very easy to get verified by Twitter for example. Just create a load of impersonation accounts, use proxy IP's to post obscenities and actionable slander, claim Twitter's not taking action, ask for the 'tick', bob's your uncle). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it is not easy to get verified on twitter at all with only 190,000 verified twitter accounts and 300 Million users thats about .06%. You can read about that here:

https://thenextweb.com/twitter/2016/07/22/twitter-verification-rises/#.tnw_zyJvMVl0

Also Twitter (as well as social media companies) have algorithms that make is easy to find fake accounts which is why they don't verify accounts with Bots or fake followers. More on topic though, simply searching the internet brings up far more notability for the page in question than a verified twitter (as seen below), and by links other editors have placed up here as well. WP:PORNBIO is very specific about what the requirements are for notability, and winning award is just one of three potential avenues. As noted, she more than qualifies in the other 2 areas (not just one). I have taken the liberty of listing those below for everyone to read in order to make it easy for people to reference. Thank you so much for taking the time to become part of this discussion though, and I hope to talk with you more in the future! If you ever have any specific questions regarding social media just leave me a message on my talk page! Art javier (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notable recording as a musician, no notable awards as an actress. Nominations are not awards. No unique contributions--writing a self-published book is neither unique or significant. As for " featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." this means mainstream, not porn-specific. I don't see anything that's not trivial. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable as a porn performer. Not notable as a musician (flimsy, mostly local, coverage). Most of the substantive sourcing is based on the subject's own promotional material. Lots of COI editing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interesting that this has come up again

It is important that editors who are viewing this page have the opportunity to view the information that has been removed that specifically cite Notability. Any unbiased editor would want all facts available for anyone to read in order to make an informed decision regarding this article and the statements made by other editors as well as the fact that the article was already reviewed and found to meet notability under WP:PORNBIO We should let EVERYONE else be the judge of the facts and not just one editors opinions. Art javier (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is a personal issue rather than actual fact.

1) this page had the Picture of Nikki Phoenix removed by various editors making false statements that were TOTALLY refuted by the OTRS process, and the picture was reinstated.

2) let us all look at what notability requirements are, which I took the liberty of posting on the talk page for this article:

== Notability ==

Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO nor WP:NMUSIC. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Has already met Notability and was documented on the article talk page ==

Has already met notability per WP:PORNBIO noted by Devopam (talk)

Perhaps looking at his comment will help with a frame of reference.

Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating Nikki Phoenix!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Devopam (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to refresh everyones memory on what that is:

People involved in pornography:

Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.

Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. (clearly shown from her music contributions; performances at AVN, Music Festivals and Nightclubs throughout the US; her beginning the trend for adult stars to become EDM musicians and DJs (Carter Cruise, DJ Darcie Dolce and others) of which she is the only one who is singing, writing, producing and performing as an aerialist while singing and performing her songs which hit #1 on Soundcloud and had documented radio play in Canada, the US and Europe; her 12 awards nominations including for Best Soundtrack for her own movie she produced and starred in (beginning another trend in pornography); the fact she is an owner producer of both movies and music and is concurrently and actively engaged in both clearly make her "Notable" as well as the person who started this particular trend in pornography; all of which have also been deleted off her page)

Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. (Clearly documented from all of the mainstream press, that has also been deleted off her page)

Perhaps that's why the page was already documented as having met notability per WP:PORNBIO noted by Devopam (talk)

While I did not put this page back up on Wikipedia, I'm rather amused that people seek to delete the portions they know go specifically to her notability. --Art javier (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) the Statement "Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage." shows the failure of any substantial research on Nikki Phoenix i.e.:

  a) Verified Twitter:   https://twitter.com/iamnikkiphoenix
  b) Verified Instgram:  https://www.instagram.com/iamnikkiphoenix/
  c) Verified Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/ThePhoenixEmpire/
  d) Verified Shazam:    https://www.shazam.com/artist/46166613/nikki-phoenix
  e) Verified Spotify:   https://open.spotify.com/artist/2FP1qLqOFkP9IsQckHbJgF (must be logged into your spotify account of course)
  f) music available on Google: https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Nikki_Phoenix?id=Aj5f5aysacc6mzkzesyuvkcqvey
  g) music available on Itunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/days-like-this-single/id1122644216

Lets note that she is the only person in the history of the adult business to be verified on Spotify and Shazam, as well as having a #1 single on Soundcloud with 14 Million Plays and documented radio play in Canada, US and Europe. That in itself is "Remarkable", however, the fact that she has met Notability requirements on all social media and music platforms, and has Verified Accounts on all of them shows specifically that she is in fact "Notable".

  f) 12 time Mainstream Star of the Year Nominee, by AVN, XRCO and XBIZ, as well as Best Soundtrack, Best Website and Best New Imprint make her "Remarkable" in her adult endeavors.

Her endeavors are all clearly documented on her IMDb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4832064/

  g) radio co-host on LA Talk Radio:  (just a few examples LOL)

http://latalkradio.com/thursday-july-30-2015amber%20#audio_play

http://latalkradio.com/content/amberlynn-032615%20#audio_play

http://latalkradio.com/content/amberlynn-012915%20#audio_play

and

  H) appearances on XM Radio: http://media.wix.com/ugd/78ea46_0905f4ab133b4e4e8e3fafca091bf430.pdf

From her website: http://www.iamnikkiphoenix.com/ Not sure again, why a simple search on the internet by K.e.coffman did not show all of the reference material available to everyone

  I) appearances on numerous other radio show and stations, i.e. WMAY:  http://www.wmay.com/episode/the-mancave-with-nikki-phoenix/

Which CLEARLY make her "Remarkable" LOL, yet puzzling that K.e.coffman would fail to find any of these things on a brief internet search.

4) the statement "Unremarkable" as a musician who has headlined major music festivals and nightclubs all across the US is a bit puzzling too. They are listed on her site here: http://www.iamnikkiphoenix.com/iamnikkiphoenixshows but for those who seek a outside source, they are also listed on well known sites like RESIDENT ADVISOR: https://www.residentadvisor.net/search.aspx?searchstr=Nikki%20Phoenix

Which also show the Billboards for the events, her music and event details.

5) Interviewed by numerous legitimate news and magazine sources including Vegas Seven Magazine, ThisIs50 and DJOYBeat documenting her Notability in Adult and Music: http://vegasseven.com/2014/04/22/nikki-phoenix-plays-beauty-beat/

http://www.thisis50.com/profiles/blogs/exclusive-interview-nikki-phoenix

http://www.djoybeat.com/exclusive-adult-starlet-nikki-phoenix-on-her-new-edm-career/

AGAIN HOW THESE EASILY SEARCHED ARTICLES WERE MISSED OR WHY SOMEONE WOULD NOT SEE THEY CLEARLY FALL UNDER: WP:PORNBIO simply shows bias by this editor.

Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Just to refresh everyone's memory on what that is.

6) Is a published author, which is also groundbreaking for an adult star as well. https://www.amazon.com/Fit-As-Phoenix-120lbs-Enjoying/dp/150544540X

7) Also, she is already documented as working with other Notable musicians, like Chip E. the "Godfather of House Music" who is on Wikipedia as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_E. http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=200818 https://www.jackeldphoenix.com/

Perhaps that's exactly why a previous editor already posted that her page was reviewed and had met Notability requirements which was left on the talk page for the article:

Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating Nikki Phoenix!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Devopam (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For K.e.coffman to have intentionally removed parts of the article that specifically cite her notability, and then try to nominate the article for deletion after Devopam already noted it met notability requirements and making statements using words like "Unremarkable" when a brief search of the internet shows otherwise would tend to indicate either a lack of research or a personal vendetta towards this particular page for whatever reason. However, Neither of those reasons are a valid justification for the deletion of the page, which according to other editors has already met notability requirements.

This type of vindictive behavior is precisely why I took a long break from Wikipedia, as I have found a number of editors who do not adhere to the concepts clearly listed: Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks For disputes, seek dispute resolution

And more importantly are not Editors, they are simply Deletors, who simply delete hard work made by other editors for whatever their own personal reasons may be. An Editor would do research and add relevant material, or ask for it to be researched and cited.

Art javier (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.